The Pentagon attempted to set up - and this has precedent as a wartime measure - a black propaganda office to plant stories in foreign media before a political uproar forced the closure the proposed Office of Strategic Influence. Despite the name, the OSI, from what information was available was really not strategic in scope but mostly tactical and concerned with the usual psychological warfare and propaganda operations germane to modern military campaigns. A genuine Strategic Influence program would be more akin to what is happening with the Intelligence Community and with Homeland Security - a tight interagency coordination effort directed by an official close to the President. This would make sense because there are a number of facets to Strategic Influence, both overt and covert:

OVERT......................................................................COVERTDiplomacy..................................................Agents of InfluencePublic Diplomacy........................................Black PropagandaGovernment Contracts................................BriberyLobbying.................................................Recruitment of AssetsForeign aid...................................................Black OperationsOp-Eds....................................................CounterintelligencePolitical ConsultationMilitary Aid and Training ProgramsProject Development GrantsUSG Media/VOA/USIATrade PolicyMacroeconomic PolicyMonetary PolicyScientific, Cultural and Educational ExchangeThink Tank/Friendly NGO programsCovert activities actually would play a relatively small, if vital, part in a Strategic Influence program one role being the identification of future foreign leaders to be cultivated as friends or diverted/distracted from politics by other attractive opportunities if hostile. The IC would also develop the psychological and cultural-historical expertise staff to help devise and craft context specific " messages" appropriate for different societies.

At this juncture in the GWOT though, the task is primarily organizational - getting the manifold agencies, departments, bureaus, services and offices of the USG working toward a set of common strategic goals, each in their own field with their particular skill-sets. Rather than build a new, attention-getting, megabureaucracy, the National Security Adviser should quietly assume the coordinator role, assisted by a strongly disciplined interagency process established by an executive order. A section of career staff, lodged somewhere in the IC in a permanent office, would be required to monitor and maintain the longitudinal aspects of Strategic Influence operations to assure continuity and success.

It's a great idea and I agree that it should be a critical part of any plan to "beat" terrorism in the long term. However, the issue is very complex and won't be solved by simply creating another agency. The bias in the world's major media outlets is our greatest foe. For example, recently there was a parliamentary vote in Iran on the need for the country to continue enriching uranium. After they voted in the affirmative to continue the enrichment, the parliament erupted in a chant of "Death to America." When this story ran in the world's media (the BBC and others), the vote itself was mentioned but the part about wishing death to America was not. Therefore, virtually nobody in Europe or anywhere else in the world has an appreciation of the hatred that the Iranians have for the U.S. Now repeat this phenomenon over and over, day after day and you wind up with people shaking their head as to why America is taking this or that action. I think this is where our diplomatic core has failed us. They are our representatives and should be looking out for our interests in each country. They need to be out in the local tv and radio talk shows pointing out such discrepancies. We have let this issue fester too long.

I too would prefer tight coordination through existing mechanisms to another mega-Agency. Aside from the dubious proposition that extreme centralization will improve efficiency Strategic Influence, to be effective, has to be subtle. Nothing could be more ham-fisted that cloning the Department of Homeland Security.

Strategic Influence is definitely a good idea. But it immediately leads to what some in the blogosphere have called the "pan-western culture war" "the ideological war within the West." There is an ideological fault line within the West with Classical Liberals (conservatives, libertarians, centrist Democrats and many independents)on one side and the transnational socialists on the other. If we are going to promote the basic American ideals of individual liberty, rule of law, limited constitutional gov't, entrepreneurialism, and universal human rights, then we are promoting a political worldview that is in opposition to the tranzi agenda. The fault line runs through the Democratic Party. Is the DP a tranzi party or a party that promotes a variation on American liberal democratic worldview?